4. She has experienced mirages, both visual and auditory exist.5. She has misperceived what she saw or been helped to misperceive – as a hunter we help our prey to misperceive us all the time so that we can kill them. We can see cold readers doing the same thing and preachers with “words of knowledge”, than there's Derren Brown creating misperception by suggestion.6. She's been hypnotized and subject to a fraud campaign. She has that phot of herself OBE she did not take it and the person who did is a prime suspect for the fraud campaign.7. A demon has been haunting her and causing her to experience these things (yeah this is a Christian view and I'm not a Christian...still I'm not sure demons are not real, though I hope they're not )8. She's been a test subject in government mind experiments. This is a bit unlikely as she's an Australian; but if an American we would certainly have to keep it on the list just from what we know the CIA and our government have done that's part of the historical record.

... I call them dreams. Only I can see them, so although they are very real to me, they can't be seen by anyone else. I've heard of people seeing auras around people and I don't think they are lying either. It perhaps is a synethesia of some sort. Again, a hallucination because nobody else can measure it or detect it with an instrument. It's not physical. It's an hallucination.

You're ignorant of the technologies that have been invented Haggart. They can both detect your dreams with instruments and partially recreate what you're seeing -it will be fun to see in the next 20-30 years whether of not they perfect it and we'll be able to watch other peoples dreams.

Also the aura may be able to be seen right now with instruments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhBYqkos-Xhk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6NIUV24vcQh

I haven't seen the proof however, so it's just anecdotal. Her word against all others...Let's say that she is telling the truth and everything she claims is indeed real. Since I am not born with psychic abilities and am unable to view the spirit realm interacting with this one, for me, it is not now, and never will be a part of my reality. There is so much in the expansive oceans that I will never see, and only hear stories about. If I never see a mermaid or a megalodon, even if they are indeed real, I will live my whole life on land and die without one ever being a part of my reality, so I have to assume they don't exist until proven otherwise.

However giant squids use to be folklore until one washed up on land and was proven. So I will remain open-minded, but skeptical until my beliefs are proven wrong.

Despite Summerland's insistence on absolute proof, proof of anything is abnormal. It's an ideal rather than anything of actual value. What you have before you is anecdotal evidence and like all evidence it needs to be evaluated and in so far as possible tested. It's not her word against all others it's those who dismiss her claims without any valid reason because it disagrees with their own values – they're not rational and so their own claims get dismissed as non-evidence, as their claims are grounded in prejudice not experience or reason.

If there is a spirit realm interacting with this one it's part of everyone's life whether they acknowledge it or not. The proper attitude is not to dismiss evidence; but just to suspend judgement. We need to suspend judgement on anecdotal evidence because it usually can't be tested – the world is always full of mysteries some of which are true however far fetched they are.

Many of her claims are far fetched and the photo of an astral body contradicts normal experience – people die all the time under observation and no one sees and films their spirits leaving – this is the only claim of hers which really is her word against all others. She obviously did not take her own photo and this is a case where she may be being hoaxed by someone else.

"There is only one God and his name is Death.And there is only one thing we say to death "not today"- Syrio Forel

Snaggle's logic is no different to Taleb's "Black Swan theory." First of all, this isn't about absolute proofs but it certainly is about evidence which she did not provide when we requested it. So, I stand by this firmly: anything that can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. (Something which Snaggle does not have the brain to understand otherwise he would also know that kirlean photography does not evidence auras. Auras, in the spiritual sense, by the way, do not exist.)

Snaggle, it seems, conveniently mistakes anecdotage for verificationism. And confuses scepticism with denial. Then he uses this illogic to accuse his doubting Thomases of having no faith, opting for heretical disbelief instead.

Snaggle, Snaggle...

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

4. She has experienced mirages, both visual and auditory exist.5. She has misperceived what she saw or been helped to misperceive – as a hunter we help our prey to misperceive us all the time so that we can kill them. We can see cold readers doing the same thing and preachers with “words of knowledge”, than there's Derren Brown creating misperception by suggestion.6. She's been hypnotized and subject to a fraud campaign. She has that phot of herself OBE she did not take it and the person who did is a prime suspect for the fraud campaign.7. A demon has been haunting her and causing her to experience these things (yeah this is a Christian view and I'm not a Christian...still I'm not sure demons are not real, though I hope they're not )8. She's been a test subject in government mind experiments. This is a bit unlikely as she's an Australian; but if an American we would certainly have to keep it on the list just from what we know the CIA and our government have done that's part of the historical record.

Also another possibility would be:9. Im on drugs or alcohol thou I guess that would have to come under hallicinations (Note thou I dont drink or not hallucinations or illegal drugs).

Wouldnt rule the test subject in mind experiements even in Australia. One of my teachers had issues with the CIA who gatecrashed one could say one of his lectures in Sydney Australia (He was teaching what he called bilocation but one can call this "remote viewing". I used to fly interstate to attend his classes at times but wasnt at that one. This happened after the American remote viewing program had supposively been shut down.. so that story they gave the general public was bullshit).

She's been hypnotized and subject to a fraud campaign. She has that phot of herself OBE she did not take it and the person who did is a prime suspect for the fraud campaign.

You have the OBE photo thing wrong (you can check my previous post whereever you saw it and see you got wrong impression or took my post in wrong way). The OBE photo wasnt of me but of astral projectors (or projector.. Ive forgotten which. Im sure it was 2 thinking back to it) who had posed for someone I met at one of the stranger groups Im involved in (or was involved in, Im currently disabled and housebound so arent currently having contact with any of the groups in my past). But anyone, a couple experienced in astral projection posed to another (not me), who then took their photos. They had set it up between themselves going out of body so the other could take the photo and I was shown the photo.

This photo was among others group members had taken and we were sharing with each other at the group. I took photos of those photos (as people were understandably reluctant to hand out the real photos for others to take away and get professionally copied). People someones bring strange things to groups so once one person had pulled out strange photos they'd taken.. a couple of others did too. Oh boy.. I can see how strange this all must sound.

I truely believe these people. Most stuck to higher principles and ideals and were quite on their spiritual paths.

It was a LARGE group attendance and several people had strange photos including strange ones group members took when they went on an Egypt tour of the Great Pyramid. Our group got very special permission to hold a meditation in the Kings Chamber (or maybe it was queens, it was one of those, I think it was the Kings Chamber). I wasnt present on that tour cause as a single parent on a pension, I couldnt afford that.

Last edited by taniaaust1 on 25 Feb 2015 13:08, edited 1 time in total.

To get someone's attention you need evidence, tania. I don't think you, like Snaggle, understand scepticism.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

If "anecdotal evidence" was a real thing, I could tell any wild story I like and you would have to believe me. And we have to have better standards of reality than that, ones based around tangible evidence, or else anything goes. Like the superstition that Elvis Presely is still alive. Or that President Busche orchestrated 9/11.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Issue with strong sceptics is that even if evidence is presented they wouldnt believe eg one could present a photo and they'd think it was altered! Many sceptics wouldnt believe something unless they saw it with their own two eyes. (hence I dont even bother ever trying to show strong sceptics photos)

Issue with strong sceptics is that even if evidence is presented they wouldnt believe eg one could present a photo and they'd think it was altered! Many sceptics wouldnt believe something unless they saw it with their own two eyes. (hence I dont even bother ever trying to show strong sceptics photos)

It is not skepticism to only believe to the limits of the evidence presented. It is rational conclusion. What is conveyed in any experience is exactly that experience, not the mythologies, or the chance conclusions of the observer. For example, I am alive today because of what to some would appear to be divine intervention, but to me, and what I know about language, and the relative speeds of processing language, I say it is what is called telepathy. However, personal experiences like that can only be empty words to someone who has never experienced it, and it is really not important that they do. What is always important is doing our own work, and understanding that what we know, is exactly what we know. No more, no less. And what someone else can know of what we know is limited to exactly what we can show them. No more, no less. And what can be conveyed is dependent upon your ability to bring someone along with you by a rational process. I often only argue so that I can spot how it is I am failing.

And language is a social thing. When you argue with a person, you have to be actively aware that the language you are using is basically only an indexing tool of the mind. You have to observe also, the other persons ability with it. In Platonic terms, to see the similar idea in the many examples, is a reference to the indexing functionality of a mind. What we are taught, even in colleges, about language, what it is, what it is for, how it works, cannot be called an education. So, if communicating is really important to one, then they have to resign themselves to a long and personal education, along which, they know they are not really communicating much.

Language is the only tool of a mind. We use it to effect our behavior and the behaviors of our environment. So, as was written, anyone who understands this, remove first the beam from our own eye.

As logic, such as common grammar, is an indexing system, there are hazards involved in how we apply it. A conclusion we reach when young will determined how we associate, file, information. If we have to make a radical change in associations, then what happens is often called a cathartic experience, an extreme one, is would often be called a mental breakdown. It is actually a physical process to rewire a brain. There are certain natural processes required to do it, so, often you are fighting with a person trying to avoid such an event. The event itself, if one is not aware of what it means, can also adversely effect how one even views themselves. Our subjective integration with reality is dependent upon how we have established that basic wiring. It is not something that one can talk away, however, many parasites calling themselves psychiatrists, and psychologist do make a living out of pretending to help.

How people are educated really has a great deal to do with the mental health of any civilization. What happens when you remove certain experiences through the introduction of technologies, effects their basic ability to function. The ability to change a mind is then related to the material, the experiences, indexed. This is why, teach them when they are young, and the less experiences one has had in life, the easier it is to change a persons mind.

This is also why, when looking for certain concepts, one is more apt to find them from an age when men had a lot to do to survive. They had to develop efficient methods of thinking.

Philosopher8659 wrote: . However, personal experiences like that can only be empty words to someone who has never experienced it, and it is really not important that they do. What is always important is doing our own work, and understanding that what we know, is exactly what we know. No more, no less. And what someone else can know of what we know is limited to exactly what we can show them. No more, no less.

As Hagart pointed out, I tried the cards. Nothing significant. Also, the more you read books about neuroscience and Darwinian evolution, the more the notion of ghosts amd afterlife sounds absurd.

I don't believe. I've been open-minded long enough. I gave it the benefit of the doubt. Now I have pretty much closed the door on it. It's wish-wash. It's BS.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."